Sample by My Essay Writer
The level of influence possessed by the actors in the international community regarding the conflict can be discussed from various points of view. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) not only requires the participants of any conflict to be interested in the resolution of such conflicts, but it also makes the sovereignty of a nation a paramount interest. This analysis attempts to establish the positions adopted by the Security Council and through the consideration of each members’ significance within the Syrian and Libyan situations. The effort involved in these two environments of conflict not only allows the rational discussion to assess the position of the Security Council, but it also allows one to make recommendations towards the United Nations effectiveness regarding security and governance on a global scale.
< Click Essay Writer to order your essay >
On an international platform, it is the responsibility of the UN Security Council to assess humanitarian, conflict situations, and facilitate crimes within conflicts. However, the level of intervention observable on the Syrian situation is not aligned with the interests of the international community. The factors that necessitate the humanitarian response in this war include the involvement of civilians in war within the neutral region, lack of observance of agreements between the UN and participants of the anti-ISIS offensive, and the committing of unsuited aggressive attacks towards neutral areas (Averre & Davies, 2015). These aspects not only contravene the interests expressed by the UN in their capacity in a humanitarian concern but also contribute largely in civilian casualties and crimes within conflict situations (Averre & Davies, 2015). Either these can be considered as results of the minimal intervention of the Security Council or the excessive input from joint forces from various anti-ISIS fronts.< Need an Essay Writing Service? >
While in the Syrian conflict, there have been events of anti-personnel strikes (both on and off ground efforts) resulting in a contravention of UN ideals. Such issues, as observed by various parties in this setting, can be considered because of excessive involvement of external parties, and the lack of respect for Syria’s sovereignty by other participants, which limits the allowable level of contribution that the Syrian forces and allies can make (Sadat, 2015). In this respect, the other participants take over as the superior contributors in the offensive, and with limited interests in Syria’s protection. Such aspects, within the non-intervention from the council, allow these participants to go against the ideals initially set in agreements. Also, the level of conflict around civilian regions (of Aleppo, for example) only goes above the respect of Allied forces in protection of humanitarian conditions and concerns (Averre & Davies, 2015). Similarly, it allows for committing of crimes due to the lack of supervisory participants from the Security Council.
< Are you asking for someone to Write My Essay for Me ? >
Inasmuch as the actions taken by the international community have been heavily publicised, the ending of mass atrocities in Libya and Syria have been on a small scale (Sadat, 2015). The interests of external parties in either ending the conflict or observing of humanitarian interests was not felt on a significant level. In specific terms, the contribution of the actions of the Security Council was fundamentally limited to the advising of participants of either conflict, with the contravening of agreed ceasefires and agreements frequently occurring whenever there was a breakdown of diplomatic relations (Sadat, 2015). The Libyan confrontation between government, rebel, and external parties in the conflict not only resulted in the current state of instability, but it also integrated mass atrocity war crimes on various levels. The humanitarian interventions in the region were limited to areas accessible during the conflict, and excluded regions experiencing humanitarian crisis (Sadat, 2015). Therefore, the degree of unwillingness of the international community (in its UN capacity) towards the safety of Libyan citizens from mass atrocities resulted in a failure of nations and the Security Council for a prolonged period (Sengupta, 2014). Such interests not only regulate the position of the UN, but it also cuts the ability of nations to enter these regions and interact with communities exposed to conflict.
It is important to recognise the level of influence possessed by participants such as France, the UK, Russia, Ukraine, and the US. Contributions of either nation in both f the conflicts involved the escalation of diplomatic tensions between allies (Sadat, 2015). A scenario of such issues may be the agreements that were made in the Syrian setting between US Secretary of State and Russian Foreign Minister towards a ceasefire, which broke down after continued airstrikes (Sadat, 2015). Such warfare not only escalated the participation of other parties in the civilian region, but it also resulted in significant loss of civilian life from constant barrage. Similarly, the Libyan conflict experienced a breakdown and failure of agreements between diplomats from the UK, the US, and France, resulting in the continuation of conflict in the capital which reported significant loss of life, and collective mass atrocities (Sadat, 2015).
Apart from these aspects, the factors that led to the lack of intervention can be summarised as relating to the interests of the global community. In the regions considered, in both Syria and Libya, it is possible to identify the failure of such abilities due to limited intervention, diplomatic positions of each nation and the motivation of entering conflict for each participant (Averre & Davies, 2015). As per the recommendations towards handling these issues, it is essential for the largest limitations to be dealt with before solutions emerge. These include the elimination of restrictions from the observation of humanitarian interests from diplomatic positions. All positions held by the UN are ideal on theoretical basis for the appreciation of contributions from participants of conflict, but the contravening of such agreements result in the issues in discussion. The recommendation for this situation is the facilitation of better diplomatic relationships between participants and the integration of the host in decision making to ease conditions of war for civilians by preventing casualties and reducing the anguish of refugees.
The diplomacies assumed by different nations not only restrict the position of nations in participation and solution of war- they also reduce the motivation of such parties in intervening. In the capacity of the UN, it is imperative for the presence of a better definition of capacities in each conflict to facilitate the power and capacity of its security council in directing nations in wars in avoidance of war crimes. It is necessary that the definition of protocols for engagement in conflict for participants integrate binding agreements for humanitarian and diplomatic decision-making process. Such attempts from both the UN and participants of such conflict attempt to observe interest of humanitarian groups and avoid the committing of crimes in such engagements. These definitions would also increase the capacity of participants to participate in continuing offensive against the enemies of state and global security (on both the case of Syria and Libya). In the overall consideration of conflict and the participation of the UN and members of the council in the preservation of the interest of both the nations hosting conflict and the participants.
Averre, D. & Davies, L. (2015). Russia, humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: The case of Syria. International Affairs, 91(4), 813-834.
Sadat, L. N. (2015). Genocide in Syria: International legal options, international legal limits, and the serious problem of political will. Impunity Watch Law Journal, 1.
Sengupta, S. (2014, May 8). In dealings on Syria, Security Council exposes its failings. The New York Times